Delhi High Court
Mohd. Inam vs The Senior Divisional Manager & ... on 23 May, 2014
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 392/2014
% Date of decision: 23rd May, 2014
MOHD. INAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Shiv Prakash Pandey with
Mr.Raghav Pandey, Advts.
versus
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant before us seeks entitlement to a financial benefit of
basic pay of Rs.1410 placing reliance on the Circular dated 16th March,
1990. The relevant portion of this Circular as relied upon by the learned
Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:
"The fixation of pay on absorption in the Class III post will
be in the following manner:
(i) The basic pay will be initially fixed at the lowest stage in the
scale of pay of Assistant or Record Clerk as the case may be and
thereafter one increment for every two years completed service as
a Development Officer may be granted (a part or a fraction of
such period shall not be counted for the purposes). However, the
basic pay to be fixed shall be not more than the basic pay he was
drawing as a Development Officer at the time of termination.
Further, if the basic pay he was drawing as a Development Officer
at the time of termination was not in the scale of pay of the Class
III post to which he is being reappointed, the basic pay in Class III
post shall be fixed at a stage which is just below the basic pay he
was drawing as a Development Officer at the time of his
termination."
2. The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner has failed to
make out a case as to how he is entitled to benefit under above circular and
that the writ petition was hopelessly bereft of any details in the matter. It is
stated that the petitioner worked upto November, 1993 on the post of
Development Officer, a Class II post when he was removed from service by
an order dated 8th November, 1983 under 'Work Norms Basis'. The
petitioner was taken back into service in pursuance of the departmental
instructions as Class III employee in the post of Record Clerk in the Clerical
Staff and was posted in Life Insurance Corporation Branch-1, Ghaziaad vide
appointment order dated 27th January, 1993.
3. As per writ petitioner, on his reappointment in the post of record clerk
his basic salary was fixed in the grade of Rs.930/-. He filed a representation
that he, according to the circular dated 16th March, 1990, should be
reappointed as Assistant in the grade of Rs.1000/- which was not favourably
considered resulting in filing of a writ petition before the High Court of
Allahabad. The basic pay of the petitioner at the time of termination as
Development Officer was Rs.350/- per month. We have discerned the
information in this regard from the counter affidavit of the respondent
wherein the respondents have disclosed that the basic pay of the petitioner at
the time of termination as Development Officer was Rs.350/- per month and
that his basic pay was fixed at Rs.930/- per month i.e. the minimum of the
scale of the record clerk.
4. On reading of the extract of the Circular dated 16 th March, 1990, it
would appear that the pay of the petitioner as Development Officer had to be
fixed at the lowest stage in the scale of pay of Record Clerk and thereafter
was entitled to one increment after every two years on completion of his
service as Development Officer which could be granted. The Circular
mandates that the pay scale which was to be fixed shall not be more than the
pay scale he was drawing as Development Officer at the time of his
termination. In his rejoinder, the petitioner does not dispute this assertion of
facts by the respondents in the counter affidavit.
5. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was
entitled to the benefit under a Circular dated 7th November, 1989 whereby
an amendment was made to the Life Insurance Corporation of India
Development Officers (Revision or Terms and Conditions of Service)
Amendment Rules, 1985. It is urged that the by this notification there was
revision of terms and conditions of the service of Development Officers
instructions, 1986 and fitment chart or Revised Basic pay scale structure,
1986 was stipulated. We find that the petitioner was entitled to and given
the benefit of subsequent Circular dated 16th March, 1990. There is nothing
before us to show that at the time of his termination of his service as a
Development Officer, the petitioner's pay scale was more than Rs.930/- per
month as stated in the counter affidavit. Necessary averment in the counter
affidavit reads as under:
"The basic pay of the petitioner at the time of termination as
Development Officer was Rs.350/- per month. Accordingly, his
basic pay was fixed at Rs.930/- per month (i.e. the minimum of
the scale of record clerk).
6. For these reasons, we find no error in the pay fixation of the petitioner
by the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the pay of the other
persons similarly situated has been fixed at higher grade. Other persons have
been given the benefit of the Circular dated 16 th March, 1990 which has
been denied to the petitioner. Nothing has been pointed from the record
which would enable us to conclude that the petitioner has been denied any
benefit which he was entitled under the said Circular or has been
discriminated against.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal,
which is dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 23, 2014
rb
